jshore:
Well yes. You serve a higher standard, and it as your cites indicate macro items like consumer confidence are much more of a determiner.
Yes?
Oh, come now. Are you really gonna sit there and bat your big brown eyes like “whatever are you talking about?” You know perfectly well. You got your faults, God knows, but stupid is not on the list.
You insinuated that I was bullshitting, fabulating, “figurative”, shall we say. You got busted.
Own up to it, or weasel out. Whats it gonna be?
Here are a few education resource type pages I followed from a Google search for “marginal propensity” plus “spend” “consume” or “save”.
It looks to me as if the generally accepted* principle is that as individual income goes up, marginal propensity to consume (MPC) goes down, and marginal propensity to save (MPS) goes up. MPC + MPS = 1
However, it also seems to be generally accepted that, as the absolute level of income rises nationally, the MPC (and therefore MPS) stays relatively constant as long as “relative income” -the gap between rich and poor- stays constant as well. I haven’t been able to glom onto any widely accepted economic theories as to how a widening gap will affect change in MPC as absolute income changes, but I’m going to take a rest, as reading economic theory makes my eyes water.
All of this would seem to me to support jshore’s line of reasoning regarding the relative effectiveness between a permanent tax cut primarily benefitting those with a higher disposable income vs. a temporary tax break for the lower income levels as an economic stimulus. Your theoretical mileage may vary.
http://www.hn.psu.edu/faculty/mahmud/econ004/Sp01/SlideSet6(Econ004).pdf
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/macro_online/tax_cut.pdf
http://www.revisionguru.co.uk/economics/consump2.htm
http://www.drfurfero.com/books/231book/ch16m.html
*I am not an economist, so take “generally accepted” as my best lay person’s guess from a casual stroll through the literature. (Hawthorne? You out there?)
Jshore’s cite is explicit:
Consumer confidence is mentioned only in passing, not as “much more of a determiner”:
FWIW,
here is John Kenneth Galbraith on the issue.
elucidator:
Yes I did. You were not.
I thought that was clear when I provided the cite where donations could be sent.
Just can’t bring yourself to do it, can you? Ah, well, that’s ok, I don’t want you to hurt yourself. Anybody who can read can see the truth.
Xeno:
Excellent cites. I mean really top notch cites. I especially like the third which I think gives the most complete discussion on the topic.
Jshore has retracted his basic-law-of-physics-immutable-truth stance and replaced it with a poverty effect and something more along the lines of a tendency, and I’m well-satisfied with that restatement.
You’re fishing for an apology, obviously.
You feel that I doubted you wrongfully and now need to offer amends.
I feel that none are merited. I feel that way because the original context in which you presented your claim was loathsome and false.
I would have ignored it completely except that if it was true, it merited my attention outside of the context in which you had abused it.
I asked for substantiation, and you appeared to evade that request, so I doubted you and said so.
You got miffed, and I repeated that I indeed doubted, and did want to know the truth.
Than Xeno provided your cite, I acknowledged the veracity and made my donation.
Why do you think I now owe you an apology?
Thanks again to Xeno and Ace Face for clearing this all up!
Just for the record, if we go back and look at my actual statements they were:
I was slightly cavalier in my first statement and made one somewhat analogy that was unclear and could easily be misinterpretted in my second…that is all. (Probably nothing in economics is on as ground nearly as firm as Newton’s 2nd law. I was sort of hoping that people would incorporate that factor into my analogy but I suppose it could have confused a few people.)
How about cause you’re full of it? How about because in any given thread, when you are disagreed with, you are the first to become insulting? Case in point, page 1 of this very post “bullshit” leaps from your mouth. Followed by “I don’t mean to be rude, but thats utter bullshit”. You don’t mean to be rude? Who do you think you’re kidding? Of course thats rude, and you damn well know it!.
Other gems:
“Wrong. Utterly wrong. Ridiculously wrong”
“All I see is this kind of crap”
“Please stop asking me stupid questions”…“I consider this request empty rhetoric.”
“Now you’re repeatedly frothing at the mouth…bullshit”
See that pattern developing here? You’re rude. Worse, you’re snide and self-righteous. No one is quicker to say “lie” and no one is quicker to take umbrage, to demand apology and retraction for offenses to your prickly dignity.
You can say a lot to me, I ain’t delicate. Call me wrong, call me stupid, call me sarcastic. Sure. But when you explicity imply that I am lying, thats the line. I warned you, and all you had to do was back away. But you just can’t do that. Then, when proven wrong, all you had to do was say “Shit, man. I was wrong. Sorry.” I point out again: when proven wrong.
OK, tough guy. I’ll call your bluff. Pit me. Lets pit each other. Take a vote, which of us the general public of the Boards would rather go away and not hear from again. Let is stand for a week. I’ll abide by the results.
Anytime you’re ready. Just say the word.
Also…
The consumer confidence theory does nothing to discount jshore’s point that the poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich. In other words, it is likely true that regardless of whether consumer confidence is high or low, the poor still have a higher MPC than the rich do. To disprove jshore, you would have to show that the opposite is true – that the poor have a lower MPC than the rich when consumer confidence is high (or vice versa). An interaction effect, in other words.
Now, what Scylla seems to be arguing – and again, this does not disprove jshore’s point – is that increasing consumer confidence may have a greater stimulative effect on the economy than giving tax breaks to the poor. But this begs the question, how are you going to increase consumer confidence? I would argue that giving tax breaks to the poor will do this much more effectively than giving tax breaks to the rich (e.g. eliminating the dividend tax), given their higher MPC!
’luce, man, I love you. I mean that. You’re consistently funny and I consistently agree with your basic positions (which probably makes me appreciate your humor far more than I might if I was diametrically opposed).
But truth, decency, humor, rhetorical aptitude… none of these things can be decided by a popularity contest. While it might be cathartic to go at it with Scylla in the Pit, it won’t prove a damned thing, or change anybody’s mind about right and wrong.
And frankly, I’d hate to see you leave these boards. (I’d have to correspond with you via email, and I just don’t see us getting enough disagreement up for you to be at your textual best.) Scylla --deservedly for his always entertaining prose-- has a rather large fan club on this board, a large percentage of whom would most likely see his contributions continue rather than yours if faced with a choice.
You were wronged, but not very severely. Scylla admitted his insinuation and that you were telling the truth, but not apologetically. We’re all quite rude to each other, quite often.
I agree with you much more often than I do with Scylla (and we both agree with Scylla on rare occassions); possibly some others do as well. I’m sure the reverse is true for an equal number of Dopers. So what?
Go ahead and scrap in the Pit; hell, I’ll probably join in. Maybe it’ll cause Scylla to change some of his rhetorical practices (Lord knows we aint the only ones who object to sophistry). Maybe it’ll improve your own practices. Go for it.
But don’t do the “this board aint big enuff for the botha us” routine. Please. You’re tougher than that shit.
Okay, I re-read it and my guess is that I should have said that “whether or not a redistribution is bad depends on intent”. Is that the correct answer? (It is a little bit hard to keep all of your rather arbitrary and counterintuitive definitions and distinctions straight!)
You’re right, Xeno. I do love a good scrap, but a fair scrap, an honorable scrap. A bit of sarcasm, good spice. Bad idea, idea withdrawn. But don’t get the idea that flattery like “you’re tougher than that” sways me in any way. 'Cause it doesn’t. Not me. Nosir. Takes more than that to con this country boy. It takes…well, stuff I’m pretty sure you ain’t got.
Still, when you’re right, you’re right. Bad idea. Forget it.
Ace_face:
Actually I’m not arguing much about this point. My belief is that jshore was in error with the stress he placed on incremental spending among the poor, if not in fact almost certainly by degree. This seems to have been resolved with the truth lying that there is an indeed an effect at the poverty level, and a tendancy along the curve subject to other factors, like consumer confidence, housing, inflation, and such. At times different factors may predominate.
jshore:
That would be more accurate. I certainly hope you don’t find my definitions counterintuitive, though I will confess I am being arbitrary, but for a reason.
Obviously you favor redistribution theory in governance, and you have been responding and posting as if it was a given that redistribution theory is in fact desirable and a part of public policy.
I think it’s important that we seperate these actions and not just look at them in terms of the economic theory you favor. Now we seem to have done that, and we’ve seperated these tax cuts and such from the context of redistribution theory to the point where we can discuss them.
Since you seem to be a redistributionist and I’m not, we’re not going to come to any agreement and will simply talk past each other if we do so within the context of redistribution theory.
So, what I’ve tried to do is isolate redistribution theory into a discrete purposeful act rather than an overrall policy for purposes of the debate.
Hopefully you are nodding your head in agreement.
Did I just get challenged to a duel (or at least a loser leaves town cage match?)
And, am I to understand that the apology that I owe is for a rather long and egregious list of perceived wrongs over a long period of time, basically a “your existence offends me!” kinda deal.
That makes sense. He did seem a little histrionic because I doubted his mere word alone. This places it in a much better contexts.
I also note that the challenger has named the terms.
Don’t I, as the challengee get to dictate the terms?
Can a challenge be withdrawn once made? Has elucidator breached honor by dictating the terms when that was not his right?
According to the rules of dueling, I think the ball is now in my court.
I believe it is my right to choose one of several actions:
- I can cringe cowardly
- I can accept the duel as offered
- I can accept the duel, rejecting his terms and naming my own. He is then honor bound to accept them
- I can simply claim victory. By naming terms my opponent has betrayed his honor and is therefore not worthy of battle -or- We simply have another matter of honor to attend to after this one. I’m not sure which it is. Somebody ask Maeglin.
- I see that that there has been an attempt at intervention by a third party, appealing to a higher nature and claiming that this is not a matter of honor.
Hmmmm. What to do? What to do?
I am overfilled with a profound feeling of silliness and melodrama.
Well, I would not put it as “desirable” so much as “inevitable” and I would take the “re” off…I.e., there is no “re” about it. I would argue that we get together and form this collective enterprise and we collectively decide the rules by which will be determined how much each person will contribute and how the money will be spent.
I don’t find “redistribution” to be a useful concept because it implies to me that there is one known way of doing things that we can determine that is not redistributing. (You have tried to get around there being one unique solution with your definitions and distinctions…but at a fairly high price I believe.)
Since all decisions concerning government will effect either or both of “who contributes what” and “who gets what”, all will tend to cause different amounts of money to either be taken from or to be given (or indirectly to go to) different people. I think definitions such as you make up that avoid this are attempts to essentially take certain decisions “off the table”, i.e., to say “You are allowed to do this but you are not allowed to do that.” It leads to black and white distinctions where I see shades of gray (and in fact I think it is even hard to determine what shade it is in many cases). I think it is arbitrary and, in practice, as I have pointed out, I think it leads to making lots of decisions that promote inequality and making fewer decisions that reduce it.
A duel, sir, is a conflict between two gentlemen.